Q about arguments for God's existence.

[FatAndFaithless]

The christians who committed atrocities were not doing so because they were christians. They were not following christianity.

That's of course totally wrong. States that declared "atheism" as the "official religion" (that's exactly what it became, the State a Communist church) were not promoting any ideology that is inextricably linked or logically follows from the term "atheist."

You can't say that about the Church-States of Christianity that ruled the Middle Ages. There is no sense in talking about what "logically follows" from Scripture as it's all open to vastly contradicting interpretations, the only way to solve that conundrum by having an official Church, which directly led to the violence. Their actions against heretics were largely viewed as consistent with their Christian faith, especially given that outside of the "rulers" "God appoints" to ensure justice (and what's more just than slaying the infidel before he corrupts more souls?) there is no one to offer an "official" interpretation of Scripture. Killing, hatred against non-believers, suppression of dissent, and the like is inextricably linked to the "Good Book."

Not to mention all the countries recently in Africa and eastern Europe and elsewhere (Ireland for example) that have had humanitarian catastrophes based on the doctrines of their faith. The leaders and participants in these events all claim to be Christian. I'm glad Lek can tell who the real Christians are.

[Mudhammam]

I'm glad Lek can tell who the real Christians are.

It takes one to know one, right?

[Lek]

Hmm, I think that's so minimal as to not count, like calling a splinter an injury (which it technically is). Besides, what you have there is disagreement about a shared resources. Couldn't she too claim to be persecuted?

I guess you're missing the whole point of what Jesus was discussing with his disciples. He was telling them that following him was not a way to avoid trials and to have an easy life. He was telling them that they would suffer because they followed him. Not only would be opposed from people from outside, but that a son would be turned against his parents and brother against sister. He spoke this way to show trials would not only come from institutions and enemies, but even from people close to them. There's no doubt that we all suffer trials and persecution, but that doesn't really apply to what he's saying. He was talking about the difficulty of following him.

---

That's of course totally wrong. States that declared "atheism" as the "official religion" (that's exactly what it became, the State a Communist church) were not promoting any ideology that is inextricably linked or logically follows from the term "atheist."

You can't say that about the Church-States of Christianity that ruled the Middle Ages. There is no sense in talking about what "logically follows" from Scripture as it's all open to vastly contradicting interpretations, the only way to solve that conundrum by having an official Church, which directly led to the violence. Their actions against heretics were largely viewed as consistent with their Christian faith, especially given that outside of the "rulers" "God appoints" to ensure justice (and what's more just than slaying the infidel before he corrupts more souls?) there is no one to offer an "official" interpretation of Scripture. Killing, hatred against non-believers, suppression of dissent, and the like is inextricably linked to the "Good Book."

Not to mention all the countries recently in Africa and eastern Europe and elsewhere (Ireland for example) that have had humanitarian catastrophes based on the doctrines of their faith. The leaders and participants in these events all claim to be Christian. I'm glad Lek can tell who the real Christians are.

I'm saying that whoever perpetuated these crimes were wrong. Then I'm saying that humanitarian catastrophes have been caused in the name of many things. There's been border disputes. Should we get rid of borders? There's nationalism. Should we get rid of nations? There's disagreements in philosophies. Should we never be allowed to disagree?

[Dystopia]

I'm glad Lek can tell who the real Christians are.

It takes one to know one, right?

Real Christians are out there saying non Christians should be executed. Everyone else is not a real Christian, just a deist with Christian influences.

---

I'm saying that whoever perpetuated these crimes were wrong. Then I'm saying that humanitarian catastrophes have been caused in the name of many things. There's been border disputes. Should we get rid of borders? There's nationalism. Should we get rid of nations? There's disagreements in philosophies. Should we never be allowed to disagree?

The existence of border territories is a necessity and has always been. The existence of religion is not a worldwide necessity. Sure you are free to have any faith you want, but that doesn't erase the fact many people commit hideous actions in the name of their god or religion, while trying to impose a theocracy. And honestly, secretly down inside all religions want to convert the entire world, it's not rare to see Islams protesting with headlines saying 'IMPOSE SHARIA LAW WE HATE DEMOCRACY AND SECULARISM'.

Everything that is a necessary evil, like borders or money is to blame for war and fighting, it's not more excusable than killing in the name of religion, but still, necessary evils are needed in the world at least until we find a better alternative. Religion only serves the purpose of satisfying a certain specified group of people, and we're lucky if they don't want to dictate society's rules.

---

I'm saying that whoever perpetuated these crimes were wrong. Then I'm saying that humanitarian catastrophes have been caused in the name of many things. There's been border disputes. Should we get rid of borders? There's nationalism. Should we get rid of nations? There's disagreements in philosophies. Should we never be allowed to disagree?

The existence of border territories is a necessity and has always been. The existence of religion is not a worldwide necessity. Sure you are free to have any faith you want, but that doesn't erase the fact many people commit hideous actions in the name of their god or religion, while trying to impose a theocracy. And honestly, secretly down inside all religions want to convert the entire world, it's not rare to see Islams protesting with headlines saying 'IMPOSE SHARIA LAW WE HATE DEMOCRACY AND SECULARISM'.

Everything that is a necessary evil, like borders or money is to blame for war and fighting, it's not more excusable than killing in the name of religion, but still, necessary evils are needed in the world at least until we find a better alternative. Religion only serves the purpose of satisfying a certain specified group of people, and we're lucky if they don't want to dictate society's rules.

[Mudhammam]

I'm saying that whoever perpetuated these crimes were wrong.

And you're acknowledging, as a Christian, that you're not able to disavow all of it--the barbarism advocated by Yahwism, the early Christians (salvation by human sacrifice, the sufferings of non-believers in hell for eternity), not to mention, by your own holy texts, you're not really in a position to judge who "true" Christians are. The Inquisitors praised and claimed guidance by the same books you esteem sacred with equal, or perhaps more, reverence.

[Jenny A]

I guess you're missing the whole point of what Jesus was discussing with his disciples. He was telling them that following him was not a way to avoid trials and to have an easy life. He was telling them that they would suffer because they followed him. Not only would be opposed from people from outside, but that a son would be turned against his parents and brother against sister. He spoke this way to show trials would not only come from institutions and enemies, but even from people close to them.

That's true of most religions and many belief systems.

There's no doubt that we all suffer trials and persecution, but that doesn't really apply to what he's saying. He was talking about the difficulty of following him.

Then why call those difficulties persecution? It's a loaded term and suggests someone's out to get you.

[Lek]

Then why call those difficulties persecution? It's a loaded term and suggests someone's out to get you.

As stated below:

2 Timothy 3:12New American Standard Bible (NASB)

12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

---

I'm saying that whoever perpetuated these crimes were wrong.

And you're acknowledging, as a Christian, that you're not able to disavow all of it--the barbarism advocated by Yahwism, the early Christians (salvation by human sacrifice, the sufferings of non-believers in hell for eternity), not to mention, by your own holy texts, you're not really in a position to judge who "true" Christians are. The Inquisitors praised and claimed guidance by the same books you esteem sacred with equal, or perhaps more, reverence.

No. I'm saying that christians are not allowed to persecute and murder. I'm not referring to what God can do.

[Mudhammam]

No. I'm saying that christians are not allowed to persecute and murder. I'm not referring to what God can do.

If God is not limited to what he can do then presumably he can act through humans to impose rules and punishments on other humans-- that's not controversial in orthodox Christianity-- it simply is to the rest of us.

[Esquilax]

You guys always go back to that argument, but when I bring up the same argument for Hitler and others, you attempt to tear it down.

Hitler specifically used religious iconography and principles to incite his people to do his bidding. Whether or not he specifically believed is neither here nor there, the point is that your religion's symbols and natural inclination to obedience and pogroms played a role in that period of history, much as you might want to deny it.

Who cares what reason people use to accomplish their means?

Courts do, people do... haven't you ever seen a sitcom? "I did a bad thing, but with good intentions," has been a trope for decades.

But you're missing the point, which is that you're attempting to pin the blame for some things on atheism, which is a concept, for which the primary motivation can more accurately be ascribed to other things. You're trying to say "atheism oppresses religion," but the things you're pointing to had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with seizing power from other groups that might hold it. That's why your point is dishonest: you start by accusing atheism of being oppressive to religion, and then when someone actually questions you on whether atheism was the motivation- when you specifically accused it of being the motivation a moment before- you act like motivations don't matter.

You can't have it both ways: do you care about motivations, in which case atheism cannot be blamed for Stalin, or do you not care, in which case your original point is moot because it was just a person doing a bad thing?

Nationalism has been used as an excuse for imperialism forever. Does that mean that we should abolish all all nations or that all nations are evil?

So then why bring up your point about atheism oppressing you poor poor christians?

If a tyrannical dictator wants to accomplish his aims, he will use whatever means he feels will work.

So then why bring up your point about atheism oppressing you poor poor christians?

These communist leaders were and are convinced that people of faith are standing in the way of their plan for total control over the masses.

So then why bring up your point about atheism oppressing you poor poor christians?

I thought that becoming atheist put one above this type of mentality. I always hear that christianity is evil because of all the bad things that were done in its name. It's a bogus argument for defaming christianity.

Just saying it's bogus doesn't make it so. The fact is that there are plenty of violent acts that would not have happened without your religion there to motivate them. The trouble is that you can't even demonstrate that any of the things you believe in are real, and so from an outside perspective, a rational one, those people died for nothing. Your point about nationalism makes no sense: at least we know nations exist. There's a difference between fighting for something demonstrably real, and the waste of life cause by religious violence. Neither should be encouraged of course, but at least the former serves a realistic purpose.

[Lek]

Hitler specifically used religious iconography and principles to incite his people to do his bidding. Whether or not he specifically believed is neither here nor there, the point is that your religion's symbols and natural inclination to obedience and pogroms played a role in that period of history, much as you might want to deny it.

And I'm saying that what Hitler did wasn't the fault of christianity.

---

But you're missing the point, which is that you're attempting to pin the blame for some things on atheism, which is a concept, for which the primary motivation can more accurately be ascribed to other things. You're trying to say "atheism oppresses religion," but the things you're pointing to had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with seizing power from other groups that might hold it. That's why your point is dishonest: you start by accusing atheism of being oppressive to religion, and then when someone actually questions you on whether atheism was the motivation- when you specifically accused it of being the motivation a moment before- you act like motivations don't matter.

You're missing my point. I never blamed atheism for persecuting christians. I did say that atheists have persecuted christians.

---

Just saying it's bogus doesn't make it so. The fact is that there are plenty of violent acts that would not have happened without your religion there to motivate them. The trouble is that you can't even demonstrate that any of the things you believe in are real, and so from an outside perspective, a rational one, those people died for nothing. Your point about nationalism makes no sense: at least we know nations exist. There's a difference between fighting for something demonstrably real, and the waste of life cause by religious violence. Neither should be encouraged of course, but at least the former serves a realistic purpose.

If there were no religions, the acts that were motivated by religion probably would not have occurred, but other atrocities would have happened which would be motivated by other rationale. Like I said in my posts, terrible acts were motivated by numerous influences for many different reasons. Evil people commit evil acts.